Some background: the natural=water, water = x was proposed by Zverik. His idea was to make it easy for mappers using aerial imagery to map anything "water"-like with natural=water, eventually someone would add the water=x detail. x, can be pond, stream, river, canal, oxbow, etc. etc. [1] carto-css (the standard rendering can handle this tagging scheme without problems).
Recently someone was complaining about this use for bassins. [2] [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-June/076144.html On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Ruben Maes <ru...@janmaes.com> wrote: > Hi Glenn > > We can do away with the relation and make sure waterway=riverbank is placed > everywhere. But this has seemed always strange to me: for canals as well? A > canal is not a river, and the wiki on waterway=riverbank says: "This > describes the tagging scheme for large rivers", linking to the Wikipedia page > for river: "A river is a natural flowing watercourse ..." > > waterway=riverbank is less relation-fiddling and I'm starting to see the > advantages of that as well. > > On donderdag 28 juli 2016 21:19 Glenn Plas wrote: >> Hey Ruben, >> >> >> I do not see the merit of natural=water scheme at all on a river or a >> >> canal. It's a waterway. imho, there is nothing to migrate to. >> >> Unless I seriously missed something, the way to do it is the way (not >> >> the area) is the logical waterway. >> > >> > Both have disadvantages. They are equally hard to maintain. >> >> I disagree here. Riverbank is easy to maintain for me atleast, they >> should not be included in any relationship either, they should not be >> named and they do make sense on rivers where the waterlevel (and/or >> tides) influence the shape. [1] >> >> The logical riverway still belongs in the the 'waterway tagging scheme' >> if we can call it like that. >> >> natural=water isn't meant for rivers. I don't see where this idea is >> coming from at the moment. It's used on lakes, still water etc but on a >> river it's not suited. [2] The wiki doesn't mention that usage either. >> >> So the logical river would be waterway=river , and that is the part you >> would put in a waterway relation, the riverbank not. >> >> Keep things simple I would suggest. Hence the suggestion to delete the >> relation, probably have to review the tags first so we don't throw away >> good information. >> >> Now, I'm about to put the kids to bed so I really just scanned the wiki >> but I've done quite some research on waterway logic, hence why I'm quite >> convinced. But always open to suggestions. >> >> Glenn >> >> >> >> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank >> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwater > > > -- > Dit bericht is ondertekend met OpenPGP. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
